Loading…

Detection versus discrimination: The limits of binding accounts in action control

Actions can be investigated by using sequential priming tasks, in which participants respond to prime and probe targets (sometimes accompanied by distractors). Facilitation and interference from prime to probe are measured by repeating, changing, or partially repeating features or responses between...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Attention, perception & psychophysics perception & psychophysics, 2020-05, Vol.82 (4), p.2085-2097
Main Authors: Schöpper, Lars-Michael, Hilchey, Matthew D., Lappe, Markus, Frings, Christian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Actions can be investigated by using sequential priming tasks, in which participants respond to prime and probe targets (sometimes accompanied by distractors). Facilitation and interference from prime to probe are measured by repeating, changing, or partially repeating features or responses between prime and probe. According to the action control literature, feature–feature or feature–response bindings are universal and apply for all actions. The attentional orienting literature, however, suggests that if the task is to detect stimuli, such binding effects may be absent. In two experiments, we compared performance in a discrimination task and a detection task with the exact same perceptual setup of prime–probe sequences. For the discrimination task, we replicated the typical feature–response binding pattern. Crucially, we did not observe any binding effects for the detection task, which can be explained by task-specific processes or fast response execution. These results reveal an important boundary of current binding models in action control.
ISSN:1943-3921
1943-393X
DOI:10.3758/s13414-019-01911-4